just because you dont like the answers and it does not fit the debunker fantasy world is hardly justifies what you said.
and you consider the Bazant paper to be "proof" of anything? really? I see some activities that tend to totally discredit the whole process of "peer review" and status based on having a PHD.....
I can read specification well enough to understand that max speed specified for the Boeing airliner is 414mph @<1000ft and if you have PROOF that an airliner can actually be flown and controlled at speeds in excess of 150 mph over this max speed and at <1000ft altitude, please present it.
Like I said before, you have yet to be able to read specs. Top published speed for a 767-200 is 565 mph. Design is 1.2 times that before flutter may or may not appear. The plane had a quartering tail wind. See if you can do the math. http://www.airlines-inform.com/commercial-aircraft/Boeing-767-200.html
I leave it up to the random lurker & reader of this forum to make up their own minds based on the available data. The question at hand is: is the max speed for an airliner lower at lower altitudes, or can an airliner be flown at >500 mph near sea level and not be into totally "uncharted territory" ? I have seen specifications sufficient to convince me, and people will just either have to KNOW aviation science well enough to have the answer for themselves, or trust in what they can get not only off the web, but see your friendly local library, there is some valuable INFORMATION to be had. Good Luck......
LOL, thanks for proving you cannot read specs or do simple math. You also have no clue what airspeed is. I suggest you actually do some reading for a change. Good luck.
You make assumptions about what you believe I know and what the state of my education is. I submit to this forum that you are trying to push an agenda and that being the idea that it is somehow not only possible, but plausible that an airliner could be flown at >500 mph @ <1000 ft altitude because if it can be shown conclusively that at the very least the flying in excess of 500 mph at near sea level, is out in totally uncharted territory, then it calls into question the official story, because at lower speeds the "FLT175" airliner would not have sufficient energy to guarantee penetration of the WTC ( if indeed the speed alleged is truly a guarantee of penetration ) The official story hinges on so many bits that as yet are totally unsupported, and this is why I encourage people to do some research on their own, If I were to offer up links, people would then create a game of "my experts are better than your experts" and it would be useless, I can only hope that there are people in this world who will take the time to look into this important issue, why did the towers & 7 just fall down as they did? Why is it that so little aircraft bits have been recovered and with that, there has been no accounting for the quantity of bits no inventory, no cataloging of what was found, where is it? and what are they hiding? Read up on what JFK said about secrecy. have a nice day : )
You have only named some bits, but do any of these bits prove that an airliner can be flown at 590 mph @ < 1000 ft altitude?
Question for all who read this forum, Why should the "total collapse" scenario be the ONLY possibility under consideration here? With at least equal probability of happening, why not this bit?
Because, by point of fact: the buildings collapsed. - - - Updated - - - The very specs for the aircraft itself.
The major question here is did that "collapse" have help, from explosives.... or? The Boeing web-page specifies the top speed of their airliners at 35,000 ft, Flying an airliner at 590 mph @ < 1000 ft altitude is impossible.
And the evidence answers: No, the collapse needed no "help from explosives". Prove it. Show your math.
What proof is there that the picture in post #66 isn't as valid as any other possible scenario? Where is your PROOF that the building should "Collapse" as was observed?
The building "collapse" happened with or without explosives and the question is, could it have happened in the way that it happened without explosives, and it could not have happened in the way that it did, without explosives. Total destruction of anything is an anomaly and as such the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 is obviously the work of human intervention.
Again, yes: Humans were piloting the planes that led to the failure and collapse of the buildings they struck. Obviously. As observed via the evidence, the collapses happened without the use of explosives.
